We're not going to have to worry about scoring and rebounding once Bynum is back into the lineup. Odom's offensive abilities (the few he has, or uses) will be overshadowed by his defensive liabilities and everyone else sharing the ball.

We're not going to have to worry about scoring and rebounding once Bynum is back into the lineup. Odom's offensive abilities (the few he has, or uses) will be overshadowed by his defensive liabilities and everyone else sharing the ball.

Josh Smith will play the three in the West, by the way.

It's not so much the scoring, more the shooting. Who apart from Kobe and Fish can hit three's in our starting lineup?

I'll remind you:

PG - FisherSG - BryantSF - SmithPF - GasolC - Bynumite

It's only Fisher and Bryant who can knock down shots. I said this before, we will probably turn into more of a physical inside team. It may actually suit Bynum more. Still, I'm worried about our ability to hit open shots.

Kurt Cobain - "Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are."

I'd do the deal in a second. I was never a huge Odom fan, I think the experiment has run it's course. Smith is athletic, young, a shot blocker, can definitely score even though he doesn't shoot great, I would love to have him. Claxton, that's just a sacrifice you have to make, and if he ever does play, he'll give you a few solid minutes as well.

If you think about it, we didn't have that third three point shooter in the starting lineup in the 07-08 season either, yet we still made it to the Finals. In the finals, we were beaten by the C's simply because we didn't have guys who could really play defense. Josh Smith is a defensive stud, has gobs of potential, and would be a dynamic shot-blocking tandem with Andrew Bynum.

Though I'd still prefer it if we could get a 3-point shooting SF, Smith brings a lot of positives to the Lakers (potential, above-average defense, aggresive slashing) that Odom couldn't bring. If this is the best offer available, I'd definitely take it.

Don't forget, we still have Farmar and Sasha on the Bench Mob who could both hit three pointers. Ariza's also shown some 3 point shooting ability and could improve. With the addition of Smith, the Lakers would be set for the future with a core of Bynum, Smith, and Farmar.

Is Smith the perfect fit?-Not even close. Smith recently shot 32% on his jumpers this season -- 8% worse than even Lamar.-Smith is a flashy passer with above average court vision for his size, but he matches every flashy pass with a flashy turnover; 16.6% of his possessions used end in an assist, but 15.5% end in a turnover.-He's a better slasher than Lamar; and with that said, his ball-handling skills aren't the reason why. He has a ton of work to do in that department and, much like Lamar, his ability to attack off the bounce is well below average for a 3 and above average for a 4. He often loses the ball in traffic.-In terms of IQ, fundamentals, and the ability to execute team basketball plays, Smith is even worse than Odom.-The coaches would have a lot of work to do with a player who is KNOWN for getting into spats with authority-figures and arguing about everything from touches to playing time.-Smith also has a bit of an arrogant streak -- ask the Detroit bench who he gave the stink eye to, during the regular season, after knocking down a pair of FTs that didn't even win the game in the closing seconds. Much like almost everyone in Atlanta, Smith thinks he's a bit better than he really is.

That said, the big difference comes down to two invaluable elements: defense and youth. -Smith is six years younger than Lamar and gives us a young front court piece to add next to Bynum for the next decade. -Smith just might be the best athlete in the league. If not, he's right up there with Marion and James. He is one of the few guys in the league who you swear some of his baskets are worth more than the scoreboard shows. When Smoov speeds, soars, and smashes it on someone's skull, the crowd gets so pumped for the next 2-3 minutes, that his play, seemingly worth only 2 points, appears to be worth more in pure, raw energy. He was an emotional leader for this reason in Atlanta.-Defensively, he is so good that he actually out-produced KG in the some of the time they shared the court together (in Atlanta). He was, in my opinion, second only to Joe Johnson, and not by much, in terms of the reason that series was extended to 7 games.

All in all, he is six years younger, has a better work ethic, has a worse team attitude than Lamar, brings similar impact offensively (slightly worse than Odom IMHO), is MUCH more aggressive, doesn't disappear in the clutch (opposite of Casper), is far and away a better athlete, he's a show stopper, defensively he is infinitely better than Lamar on the ball, and much better off it.

If you have a chance to land Josh Smith for Lamar Odom, you cannot pass on it because Smith is just worth that much more than Odom when it comes to the NBA talent pool.

It's not so much the scoring, more the shooting. Who apart from Kobe and Fish can hit three's in our starting lineup?

I'll remind you:

PG - FisherSG - BryantSF - SmithPF - GasolC - Bynumite

It's only Fisher and Bryant who can knock down shots. I said this before, we will probably turn into more of a physical inside team. It may actually suit Bynum more. Still, I'm worried about our ability to hit open shots.

Well, Lamar isn't hitting open shots either, and we need more people attacking the rim.

it does but you forgot all the other guys the lakers have, and that the fact is the lakers are going to draft a UCLA player hes gonna draft either darren collison or josh shipp and ariza iz gonna be a big time player, so the lakers gonna be a force for anutha 8 years

If you think about it, we didn't have that third three point shooter in the starting lineup in the 07-08 season either, yet we still made it to the Finals. In the finals, we were beaten by the C's simply because we didn't have guys who could really play defense. Josh Smith is a defensive stud, has gobs of potential, and would be a dynamic shot-blocking tandem with Andrew Bynum.

Though I'd still prefer it if we could get a 3-point shooting SF, Smith brings a lot of positives to the Lakers (potential, above-average defense, aggresive slashing) that Odom couldn't bring. If this is the best offer available, I'd definitely take it.

Don't forget, we still have Farmar and Sasha on the Bench Mob who could both hit three pointers. Ariza's also shown some 3 point shooting ability and could improve. With the addition of Smith, the Lakers would be set for the future with a core of Bynum, Smith, and Farmar.

kobe wasnt a very good shooter at the beging of his carrer either, and josh smith flatout will be a fantastic addition the team hes a leader and is tough thats what we need for the laker and hes gonna out up 16 and 8 plus 2 blocks every game, while doing that at the 3

Rondo also had the ball in his hands a majority of the time setting up the various side screens their offense employed. When he forced to be a spot up shooter (when they ran the ball through Pierce or in the post), he hurt their spacing greatly and had tremendous negative impacts on the offense. Boston scored 5 more points per 100 possessions when Rondo was off the court versus when he was on it. If House wasn't so bad defensively, he might have been the starter.

For Smith, he'd be forced to play off-ball a majority of the time, forced to take spot up jumpers, and, just like Odom, would hurt the offense because of it. To amplify this effect, we run our offense out of the post a strong majority of the time, probably have less on-ball screen action than any team in the league, and we now employ two post men who don't have the versatility to play any spot in the triangle outside of the 4 or 5. That relegates Smith to strictly play the perimeter when he shares the floor with Bynum and Gasol. This would make it extremely easy for teams to softly double down on the low post for the duration of the time the Smith/Gasol/Bynum trio shared the floor. It would hurt the offense (just like Rondo, but worse).

But like you said, so would Odom. While it isn't necessary to have perfect floor balance (you cited the Celtics and there are numerous more examples), floor balance is always better than floor imbalance.

Rondo also had the ball in his hands a majority of the time setting up the various side screens their offense employed. When he forced to be a spot up shooter (when they ran the ball through Pierce or in the post), he hurt their spacing greatly and had tremendous negative impacts on the offense. Boston scored 5 more points per 100 possessions when Rondo was off the court versus when he was on it. If House wasn't so bad defensively, he might have been the starter.

For Smith, he'd be forced to play off-ball a majority of the time, forced to take spot up jumpers, and, just like Odom, would hurt the offense because of it. To amplify this effect, we run our offense out of the post a strong majority of the time, probably have less on-ball screen action than any team in the league, and we now employ two post men who don't have the versatility to play any spot in the triangle outside of the 4 or 5. That relegates Smith to strictly play the perimeter when he shares the floor with Bynum and Gasol. This would make it extremely easy for teams to softly double down on the low post for the duration of the time the Smith/Gasol/Bynum trio shared the floor. It would hurt the offense (just like Rondo, but worse).

But like you said, so would Odom. While it isn't necessary to have perfect floor balance (you cited the Celtics and there are numerous more examples), floor balance is always better than floor imbalance.

That's all true, but I'm going to value our defense a little more than our offense now, especially when we have a very solid post scorer (maybe two) and the best scoring guard in the NBA, and arguably of all-time.

The way I see it, Smith won't force jumpers if there's one man defending him...when that team's best defender is actually on Bryant, or Gasol. He'll take it to the rim, and once he's on his way, he's pretty hard to contain.

Yes, to some degree repenetration will be successful, but Smith is not a particularly gifted ball-handler and is very prone to turning it over when he drives into traffic.

The problem I foresee with this team next year, offensively, has to do with the fact that with two post-players, and a 3 who can't spread the floor, we will have the three biggest opposing defenders crowding the lane. This is going clog driving lanes for Bryant and make life hard for whoever is operating on the block, whether it be Pau or Andrew, to get a clean one on one opportunity. You plug a sniper in there, and all of the sudden the defenders are staying honest again because Andrew will slip to the rim for a lob, Pau has the mid-range game, Fisher is dead eye, the new 3 is a sniper, and you can never leave Bryant. Then, it becomes a pick your poison affair for opposing Ds rather than the tried, and true I might add, leave Odom to help as much possible any time the ball goes into the paint. I see the same strategy being effective with Smith.

If it wasn't for Smith's age and potential, I'd much rather have Ron Artest or any solid defensive player capable of knocking down his threes at an exception rate.

I'd do the deal in a second. I was never a huge Odom fan, I think the experiment has run it's course. Smith is athletic, young, a shot blocker, can definitely score even though he doesn't shoot great, I would love to have him. Claxton, that's just a sacrifice you have to make, and if he ever does play, he'll give you a few solid minutes as well.

What's up Weez?

I'd do the deal but it's not the first I'd want. Marion would be my first choice. If Smith is the only other option, gotta make the deal.

IMHO, by letting Turiaf go and not picking up a a FA with the MLE, they are forced to make a 2 or 3 for 1 trade involving LO.

Yes, to some degree repenetration will be successful, but Smith is not a particularly gifted ball-handler and is very prone to turning it over when he drives into traffic.

The problem I foresee with this team next year, offensively, has to do with the fact that with two post-players, and a 3 who can't spread the floor, we will have the three biggest opposing defenders crowding the lane. This is going clog driving lanes for Bryant and make life hard for whoever is operating on the block, whether it be Pau or Andrew, to get a clean one on one opportunity. You plug a sniper in there, and all of the sudden the defenders are staying honest again because Andrew will slip to the rim for a lob, Pau has the mid-range game, Fisher is dead eye, the new 3 is a sniper, and you can never leave Bryant. Then, it becomes a pick your poison affair for opposing Ds rather than the tried, and true I might add, leave Odom to help as much possible any time the ball goes into the paint. I see the same strategy being effective with Smith.

If it wasn't for Smith's age and potential, I'd much rather have Ron Artest or any solid defensive player capable of knocking down his threes at an exception rate.

I agree with all of that minus your Artest statement. I'd take Ron over Smith right now. Way too much primacy to pass up. When Ron is winning, he's not the basket case people judge him as, and in Los Angeles, with this team, he'll be winning.

"The very basic core of a man's living spirit is his passion for adventure. The joy of life comes from our encounters with new experiences, and hence there is no greater joy than to have an endlessly changing horizon, for each day to have a new and differentsun."

I'd do the deal but it's not the first I'd want. Marion would be my first choice. If Smith is the only other option, gotta make the deal.

IMHO, by letting Turiaf go and not picking up a a FA with the MLE, they are forced to make a 2 or 3 for 1 trade involving LO.

Marion would look good in PnG but with Smith you lock up being one of the top franchises for years to come. AB and JSmoove? it would be tough for opposing teams to even get shots off

There are these things called shark attacks, but there is no such thing as a shark attack. I have never seen a real shark attack. I know you’re making a weird face as you’re reading this. OK people, a shark attack is not what we see on TV and what people portray it as.We’re humans. We live on land.Sharks live in water. So if you’re swimming in the water and a shark bites you, that’s called trespassing. That is called trespassing. That is not a shark attack.A shark attack is if you’re chilling at home, sitting on your couch, and a shark comes in and bites you; now that’s a shark attack. Now, if you’re chilling in the water, that is called invasion of space. So I have never heard of a shark attack.